As we head into tonight's debate, the fact is that both Hillary and Obama are fairly close on the issues. From a progressive perspective, neither is perfect.
The narrative to date has been that Clinton is politics as usual, while Obama represents a new and glorious future in which we can put the past divisiveness and petty squabbling behind us.
But I think that's bunk, and as the basis for a presidential campaign that will not be resolved until 10 months from now, it is not sustainable.
I realize that for many, partisanship is a four-letter word, but not for many Democrats. I, for one, think partisanship is a good and healthy thing in a Democracy.
This idea that Obama, or anyone, is going to usher in a era of good feeling and bipartisan spirit is simply naive. Outside of a small percentage of extremists who hate for hate's sake, most The partisanship results from the fact that folks have serious disagreements on many issues. The problem is not that we don't listen to each other, it is that we don't agree with one another.
My sense is that many of the "Unity" proponents just want results. Well, sure, we all want results. Every Democrat and every Republican wants better health care in this Country. The goals are not the issues. The fight is over how we get there.
You know, in 2000 the election was distilled down to the question, "Who would you rather have a beer with, Bush or Gore?" (For the record, I would choose Gore. I never liked drinking with those a-hole frat boys).
For the Democratic primary in 2008, after six years of pointless and immoral war, after years of the erosion of our civil liberties, after years of our government torturing other human beings in our name, after years of illegal and indefinite detentions and after years of the economic need of the neediest of our fellow citizens being ignored -- yes, now that the drinking is done. The question now is, "Who would you rather have backing you up in the street fight outside the bar, Obama or Hillary?"
That, for me, is a no-brainer.